Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 228 of 648 (587559)
10-19-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Dawn Bertot
10-19-2010 12:52 PM


Logic can dictate an outcome.
History is full of examples where logic did not dictate the outcome.
Logic pitted against existence itself, dictates that there are only 2 POSSIBLE explanations or possibilitesfor the existence of things.
How did you determine that there are only 2 possible explanations, and what are these possibilities?
Logic dictates given the above premise that order is present.
What premise?
What tests will science conduct to test for the etrnality of matter. Such a test is not possible, even in the imagination.
The former inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree. The scientists working at particle accelerators across the globe would likewise disagree. It has been experimentally verified that matter can be created and destroyed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 12:52 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 229 of 648 (587562)
10-19-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Dawn Bertot
10-19-2010 12:52 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Logic pitted against existence itself, dictates that there are only 2 POSSIBLE explanations or possibilitesfor the existence of things.
That doesn't address what I said. You said in Message 163 that design is "real". You can't reason from the abstract to the real. You need to start with a basis in reality - i.e. true premises. "Possible" explanations are worthless without real-world data.
Dawn Bertot writes:
The proposition of order, is dictated by both logic and physical properties.
Try to keep up. Nobody is arguing against order.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Hence design is an easy and identifiable conclusion to such a proposition, until such time science controverts its tenets
Again, the conclusion is worthless without real-world data that point to it - and not to any other conclusion. You need to do experiments to distinguish your conclusion from the conventional conclusion.
Dawn Bertot writes:
What tests will science conduct to test for the etrnality of matter.
Try to keep up. Nobody cares about the "eternality of matter". Science only concerns itself with the matter that exists today and that existed in the observable past.
Dawn Bertot writes:
My TEST ends up being the same one as yours, only logic against reality
That's what I'm trying to tell you. Your test is useless because it does nothing to distinguish your proposition from the conventional science. That's why you need a different test, one that points to your conclusion and away from the conventional explanation.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 12:52 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:50 AM ringo has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 230 of 648 (587593)
10-19-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by jar
10-19-2010 1:05 PM


Re: The third possibility
And you will not address the evidence for a designer (a key point if there is design) or show why the designer, even if true, is relevant or of any significance.
To claim that there is evidence for some designer you must do more than show that your idea is not excluded. If you wish to see design taught you MUST present evidence that explains what is seen better than any other explanation.
I have done this to many times to mention now
The simplicity in your above statement is simply beyond belief. Anyone holding a position concerning physical matters and thier explanation, is forced to a logical conclusion of thier/its initiation source
tinkering with immediate and observable materials such as evolution does, does not provide any answer, the same of which is required of the design principle.
what test does science do to allow us to know matter is eternal.
Now take it slow, simpleton
If order is not evidence of design
Then evo is not evidence of eternal matter, For, now pay attention,
if design is required to demonstrate design more than order, why is evolution not required to demonstrate the
idea that evo "seems to arise in and of itself". As you fellas suggest
Now pay even closer attention.
You cant just assume that the processes arise of itself, without demonstrating it. If Im required to demonstrate design more than order, then you obligation is to do what you claim for me
Again, order in specific detail, consistent and sustained, with observable principles, is design. all you need to do is simply show that it is not order.
if you argree that it is order, then I am not required or obligated to do anymore or less than what is required of your position
Logic and observation demoands that you provide the same rules, you require of me.
So, is there a test to demonstrate the eternality of matter. Because this is what you would need to demonstrate your position true and mine false
have fun
You fellas really dont know how to reason correctly do you?
dawn bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by jar, posted 10-19-2010 1:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by jar, posted 10-19-2010 5:24 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 235 by Taq, posted 10-19-2010 5:51 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 231 of 648 (587594)
10-19-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by hooah212002
10-19-2010 1:21 PM


You seem to be the only one saying anything about "eternal matter".
You really dont understand anything about logical rational thought processes do you?
You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID. If that is the case you are asserting a proposition, the likes of which, now pay close attention, says you are prepared to defend that assertion.
If that assertion is true where is your evidence, the same type that you require of me.
now pay even closer attention. If your evidence for that assertion is, because you see it happening, that is observation, the same as the OBSERVATION od ORDER is for mine.
Now, would you like to tie yours into the same type of evidence you require of my position
So if order is not evidence of design, then neither is it true that these things SEEM TO HAPPEN ON THIER OWN
Now tell me which one is valid or which one is incorrect?
Have fun
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2010 1:21 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2010 5:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 10-19-2010 5:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 236 by onifre, posted 10-19-2010 6:20 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 232 of 648 (587595)
10-19-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dawn Bertot
10-19-2010 5:11 PM


Re: The third possibility
Dawn Bertot writes:
So, is there a test to demonstrate the eternality of matter.
No one but you has ever even mentioned "the eternality of matter" whatever that even means.
It is also totally irrelevant to the question I asked.
quote:
And you will not address the evidence for a designer (a key point if there is design) or show why the designer, even if true, is relevant or of any significance.
Even if there were some designer, why is that of any relevance, importance or significance beyond the two areas I have mentioned repeatedly, as a historical footnote or in cases of Product Liability suits?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 5:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 1:55 AM jar has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 233 of 648 (587598)
10-19-2010 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dawn Bertot
10-19-2010 5:23 PM


So if order is not evidence of design, then neither is it true that these things SEEM TO HAPPEN ON THIER OWN
So, you are saying NO order happens on it's own and your designer has it's hands in every little aspect of everything? The droplet of water I mentioned: your designer did that too?
You really dont understand anything about logical rational thought processes do you?
I fear you are projecting your own inadequacies onto others, my dear boy.
You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID. If that is the case you are asserting a proposition, the likes of which, now pay close attention, says you are prepared to defend that assertion.
Go back and read what I posted. Take a gander at the circle of life. All natural and can be explained without the need for any designer. Look at a walnut seed. We can watch it from seed to sapling to tree. That is order, is it not? Was your designer there to make it grow? IF so, how do you know that? How can you prove it?
You are asserting something that only convolutes matters, all the while saying "prove I am wrong" as if you can just have any old hair brained idea become accepted without proving it to be correct.
If I am wrong, please feel free to explain yourself better. However, I know you won't and will just say you are the only rational person ever.
{abe}
If that assertion is true where is your evidence, the same type that you require of me.
Are you really asking for evidence that things happen naturally? Have you ever taken a nature hike? Have you ever looked at nature? WHERE IS YOUR DESIGNER????? NATURE happens naturally. The life we see EVERY DAY happens naturally: no mythical creatures necessary.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 5:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 11:42 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 251 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:09 AM hooah212002 has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 234 of 648 (587599)
10-19-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dawn Bertot
10-19-2010 5:23 PM


You really dont understand anything about logical rational thought processes do you?
So says the person who conflates possibility with reality.
You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID. If that is the case you are asserting a proposition, the likes of which, now pay close attention, says you are prepared to defend that assertion.
If that assertion is true where is your evidence, the same type that you require of me.
We can evidence the unintelligent mechanisms that result in the final product. That is how. We can design experiments whereby these forces are demonstrated.
If your evidence for that assertion is, because you see it happening, that is observation, the same as the OBSERVATION od ORDER is for mine.
It is the fact that we can make PREDICTIONS of what observations will be made and will not be made based on theoretical unintelligent forces that makes our assertions valid.
One of those predictions is that unintelligent chemical and physical forces can create order. We observe this in crystals, as one example.
So how is order evidence of a designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 5:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:19 AM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 235 of 648 (587600)
10-19-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dawn Bertot
10-19-2010 5:11 PM


Re: The third possibility
tinkering with immediate and observable materials such as evolution does, does not provide any answer,
Yes, it does. It has given us TONS of answers. Scientific journals are full of such answers.
For example, which stretches of DNA are possibly responsible for uniquely human morphology? We turn to evolution for this answer. We compare human genes with other animals using the theory of common descent to look for genes that have changed significantly in the human lineage while remaining nearly unchanged in other lineages. This has led us to many interesting answers, such as the human MYH pseudogene which may have resulted in allowing the cranium to enlarge during hominid evolution.
Design, on the other hand, can only supply word salad type answers like those found in your posts. No real world applications. No avenues of research. No science.
what test does science do to allow us to know matter is eternal.
Measure mass before and after an event, such as a nuclear decay event or a collision in a particle accelerator. As it turns out, matter is not eternal.
If order is not evidence of design
Then evo is not evidence of eternal matter,
False. If order is not evidence of design then order is not evidence for design. Period.
Nowhere have you shown why order is evidence of design. Nowhere. You have simply asserted it without reason. That is not how logic is used.
if design is required to demonstrate design more than order,
Why do you mention order at all? Why do you consider order evidence of design? You need to establish this first before pointing the finger at others.
Again, order in specific detail, consistent and sustained, with observable principles, is design.
What if I define unintelligent design as order in specific detail, consistent and sustained? Would this mean that observing order is now evidence of unintelligent design? Is your argument nothing more than a semantic argument?
Logic and observation demoands that you provide the same rules, you require of me.
Great. First rule is you need to show how order is evidence of design. We can do the same for a nested hierarchy which is evidence for evolution. So now it is up to you to do the same.
So, is there a test to demonstrate the eternality of matter. Because this is what you would need to demonstrate your position true and mine false
What does eternality of matter have to do with anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 5:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 236 of 648 (587607)
10-19-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dawn Bertot
10-19-2010 5:23 PM


Logical Fallacy
You and others have suggested many times that these things happen on thier own, with no ID.
No one can make an absolute statement that there is no ID. What we have said is that things happen naturally without evidence of an ID. However, it is possible that one still exists.
So what is the evidence for design? You answer it here:
If your evidence for that assertion is, because you see it happening, that is observation, the same as the OBSERVATION od ORDER is for mine.
So you believe order is evidence for design.
But the problem is that your definition for order...
DB writes:
properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose, or even an appaernt purpose
...is the same as the definition for something designed. Specifically when you say "demonstartable and useful purpose, or even apparent purpose." That is not in any definition you will find defining "order" - (see Merriam-Webster) - what you're describing is design.
So when asked for evidence of design, you say "order." And when asked for your definition of order, you describe design. That is textbook circular reasoning, and a clear logical fallacy.
However, if you see the actual definition of order: " a regular or harmonious arrangement" - nothing in that suggests design or designer. Nature arranges regularly and harmoniously, without purpose.
So you have confused and mixed up both words to describe the same thing. Of course it makes logical sense to you that order is evidence for design, in your mind they are the same thing.
I think you need to fix that before anymore debating can be done.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-19-2010 5:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2010 2:56 AM onifre has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 237 of 648 (587609)
10-19-2010 6:22 PM


Why is anyone bothering to continue ask Dawn Bertot to explain why "order is evidence of design"?
It has been asked several times and each time DB has shown a complete inability to answer.
If Dawn was able to produce an explanation, I am sure it would have already been posted in large yellow capitals.
Personally, I don't think DB even understands the question.
Either that or cognitive dissonance has turned Dawn into a gibbering moron.
All we will ever see is DB continuing to use a creationist random sentence generator as he avoids answering the question.

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by onifre, posted 10-19-2010 6:31 PM Panda has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 238 of 648 (587611)
10-19-2010 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Panda
10-19-2010 6:22 PM


Why is anyone bothering to continue ask Dawn Bertot to explain why "order is evidence of design"?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm doing it just to piss you off.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Panda, posted 10-19-2010 6:22 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Panda, posted 10-19-2010 7:14 PM onifre has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 239 of 648 (587614)
10-19-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
10-19-2010 10:45 AM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
jar writes:
.....the Theory of Evolution involves OBSERVED process.
IDists observe and come to a different conlusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 10-19-2010 10:45 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2010 7:00 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 241 by jar, posted 10-19-2010 7:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 242 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2010 7:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 243 by ringo, posted 10-19-2010 7:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 240 of 648 (587615)
10-19-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
10-19-2010 6:51 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
Buzsaw writes:
jar writes:
.....the Theory of Evolution involves OBSERVED process.
IDists observe and come to a different conlusion.
IDists observe their conclusions whole. They don't need to come to what they've already projected.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 6:51 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2010 8:46 AM Omnivorous has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 241 of 648 (587616)
10-19-2010 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
10-19-2010 6:51 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
IDists seem to just make stuff up and avoid discussion. For example not one IDist has ever presented a single example of the observed processes or model of the imagined designer.
And the question remains, "What value or significance is there to the designer even if it existed?"

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 6:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 242 of 648 (587620)
10-19-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
10-19-2010 6:51 PM


Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
IDists observe and come to a different conlusion.
No, you've got that backwards. IDists start with a different conclusion and then look for whatever they can find to support it. Even if they have to make most of it up (which they do). Or lie about what they do find (which they do).
Just like most creationists.
Let's face it, if they had arrived at their conclusions from their observations, then there would be some kind of record of their progression from observation to conclusion. You know, actual research. And if that actual research existed, then they could readily present it in support of their position. Which they don't do, which is a strong indicator that any such actual research does not exist, which is a strong indicator that they had never progressed from observation to conclusion.
It's the same thing with the "Two Model Approach's" (TMA) "creation model". If creationist had actually formulated an actual model, then they would have had to have done so based on evidence, which means that they would have actual evidence to present for their "creation model". However, despited their repeated claims of having mountains of evidence for creation, they never ever present even a single shread of that purported evidence. They will even go so far as to become rather belligerent in their refusal to present any of their purported evidence. Obviously, they have none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2010 6:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024